Posted on 09/29/2007 6:12:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
When Fred Thompson said it might be time to review the practice of granting citizenship to every child born on American soil, he didn't acknowledge the seismic shift such an idea represents.
Citizenship by birth has been prescribed by the Constitution since 1868 -- and upheld for 109 years by the Supreme Court -- but the Republican presidential candidate made it sound anachronistic.
"I think that law was created at another time and place for valid reasons," the former U.S. senator from Tennessee said earlier this month. "It probably needs to be revisited."
Thompson's comments have angered Hispanic leaders -- many of them Republicans -- who say they are a crass attempt to court the GOP base.
With conservative voters demanding an end to illegal immigration, Republican candidates have been talking tough on that issue for months. In July, an adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the Romney campaign was researching the birthright-citizenship issue.
"It's not just ramping up the rhetoric," said Alex Villalobos, a Republican state senator from Miami. "It's pandering to extremists."
State Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, while not criticizing any candidate directly, called the idea a "xenophobic" notion that could drive Hispanic voters from the GOP.
"At best, this would be seen as mean-spirited," he said. "At worst, it's seen as bigotry."
Thompson made the comments in Cape Coral as he barnstormed through Florida two weeks ago.
He was blasting so-called "chain migration" -- the legal immigration preference that enables naturalized or birthright citizens to bring their non-American family members here -- when he was asked about children born here to illegal immigrants.
Thompson said he was less concerned about them, but that the issue of automatic citizenship should be reviewed.
"It probably needs to be revisited," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
If you were to actually study the case you will note that in the decision it is clearly stated that it is such a case. If you can’t understand it don’t come crying to me. Study harder.
The SC does not write into it’s decisions how to accomplish what they believe you might be thinking, they simply tell you what is wrong with the your argument. Had the issue been as simple as “The case has no merit because AB’s are U.S. citizens” they would have said that.
The said quite the opposite. The described the children born in the U.S. of illegal alien parents as “Mexican Citizens.”
MEXICAN CITIZENS.
That's a good read, and an interesting theory. But I'm not convinced that it ends the argument. If the framers of the 14th meant it to mean "absent an allegiance to any foreign power," they could have written that. They didn't. And the comments of two sponsors of the bill do not necessarily reflect the views ofhte other members of Congress who voted for it, let alone the state legislatures that ratified it.
Further, as the comments and debates cited in that article make clear, in the mid-19th century, a whole lot of concepts about citizenship were vague. People were objecting to the notion that American Indians, or the babies of Chinese and others who were admitted to the US legally, could become citizens.
In those days, the Chinese were kept to Chinatown, eyed with suspicion, and the target of harsh restrictions and lurid racial slurs in the popular press. Blacks weren't full citizens in many places, not really, until the 1950s and '60s.
The notion of citizenship has changed radically since 1868. The most wrenching change is the notion that everyone is a citizen of somewhere; in the 19th century, a lot of places (aw, hell, at least a couple of continents) weren't considered countries, and the folks who lived there weren't citizens of anything. There was no government in existence that was required or empowered to protect their rights. There was no system of international law to mediate the question.
Another important change is that the development of a consensus that "second-class citizen" is an anti-American notion, antithetical to our principles. You are a citizen or you are not. And even if not a citizen, you are still a person. Basic rights are an inherent condition of humanity, and governments exist to secure these rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
As a question of law and logic, the debates about the minutiae of the 14th aren't very compelling. If you're worried about "anchor babies," amend the amendment.
A dim congress will never do this. I am not sure a congress led by R’s would, unfortunately. They did hear us on immigration, so it is possible for grassroots activities to get the idea across.
The first clause of the 14th amendment stands alone. It describes who is a citizen of the United States. All of the subsequent clauses, the ones about privileges and immunities and equal protection afforded to citizens, hang from the first. Before you can order off the menu, you gotta get in the door.
SCOTUS disagrees with your reading. In the case you cited, SCOTUS found that depriving children, regardless of immigration status, of education, violated equal protection. The case you're citing went against you, and it never addressed the point you are trying to make.
I can't imagine in how many more ways you could have gotten it wrong.
If you were to actually study the case you will note that in the decision it is clearly stated that it is such a case.
If you were to actually study the English language, you would discover that it is such a language. Which is to say that ... oh, I don't have the patience. Make a damn point, please.
If you can’t understand it don’t come crying to me. Study harder.
Study harder? It's 783 words. This is not an exercise in Talmudic scholarship. How much nuance do you think I could have missed? I mean I could meditate over it as if it were some kind of Koan, but, no.
Instead of your suggestion to "study harder," I offer the simple wisdom of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
The SC does not write into it’s decisions how to accomplish what they believe you might be thinking,
No, and Scooter doesn't drive the school bus into Harlem. Mostly because Scooter drives the school bus in Topeka.
they simply tell you what is wrong with the your argument. Had the issue been as simple as “The case has no merit because AB’s are U.S. citizens” they would have said that.
WOW. You are so amazingly missing the point that you cannot see it with binoculars.
The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deprive the children of illegal immigrants of an education. Full stop. They did not address the issue of whether the children were illegal aliens, because it was not material to the case.
The court said quite the opposite. The described the children born in the U.S. of illegal alien parents as “Mexican Citizens. MEXICAN CITIZENS.
Yup. I'ts much more convincing in all-caps, bold, underlined.
Are there Mexicans receiving an education in the US? Certainly. Are they citizens? Many of them, no, some yes. Is any of what you've posted even a little bit relevant? No. Does the SCOTUS case you cited address the question? No.
How would you like to face a mob of thuggish Mexicans like the one on O’Reilly? That’s our future. They think they have a right to enter the United States any way and time they want. They don’t care about laws and logic. All they want is enough physical force on their side to prevent deportation and other law enforcement against illegal aliens such as enforcing identity theft and impounding automobiles when you have no valid driver’s license
“This Court’s prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are ‘persons’ protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction,’ cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction’ confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. Pp. 210-216.
Yes, this seems to confirm that they(those born) are persons “WITHIN” the states jurisdiction” (emphases mine)
However, they seem to be conflating the word “WITHIN” (its jurisdiction) with the phrase (from the 14th amendment): and “SUBJECT” (to the jurisdiction, thereof).
It’s a subtle distinction.
For instance an embassy can be “within” the jurisdiction of a State, but technically it’s “subject” to the jurisdiction of it’s home country.
“The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deprive the children of illegal immigrants equal access to education, whether the children themselves are citizens or not.
Correct — as long as they are “within” the jurisdiction.
So you are correct(it would seem to me)when you say: “The decision — the only part of the opinions that provides binding precedent — does not address the question of children born here to illegal immigrants.”
So the solution is deport them (AB) back to their home country — that they are “subjects” of — so that they are no longer “within” the jurisdiction” of a (US)State.
It IS of interest that the court managed this decision WITHOUT addressing (some would say side stepping)the question of children born here to illegal immigrants.
This would seem to indicate that deportation of anchor babies are on the table.
PS: I am not saying that anchor babies should now be deported, but rather, maybe the law needs to be “revisited” so that the practice (of making anchor babies) my be illuminated in the future, and thus, dissuading “persons” from illegally immigrating to America.
What’s he going to lose with this stance-—10 votes?
That's impossible so I'll take a judge ruling 180 degrees opposite of your interpretation. All we need are the right judges and a good Supreme Court
All I care about is the bottom line- That birthright citizenship gets killed dead. I'm tired of illegal aliens having the upper hand. So far we are educating their anchor babies and their illegal alien children. Now the Democrats are pushing nationalized health care for children, this will have me paying for the health care of the offspring of illegals
“And even if not a citizen, you are still a person.”
Yes, I do not disagree.
Also, a big problem with addressing documents that were written in the far past is that the meanings of certain words my COMPLETELY change even within as short a time as fifty years — let alone one hundred or two hundred years.
This is why the context of the time they were written is so important.
Thank you for your post.
Would you agree that some sort of clarification or “revisiting” of the fourteenth amendment is in order?
Oh, I wanted to add to my former post that when Mexico’s new president Calderon states that “wherever there is a Mexican, that is Mexico” he may — in the sense that they are Mexican subjects — be legally correct!
LOL!
Time to deport!
TYPO:
At the bottom of my post 126 it should read: “eliminated” in the future (NOT) “illuminated” in the future.
Are you REALLY expecting everyone here to believe that Plyler v. Doe has no commentary? An actual Supreme Court decision that has no opinions? HAHAHAHAHA! Let me refresh your memory from the text of MY post.
"This is the actual text of their commentary on the actual meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which the libs all wanna scream about but the SC commentary is what they never talk about. "
Which is absolutely right on the money because of your classic response "I don't know what "commentary" you're talking about,"
Try the commentary contained in the five opinions HERE which, by the way is YOUR link.
Yes, that commentary. The commentary the OBL and AB supporters " never talk about. " Remember me stating that? As in stating that in the third paragraph of my post? Post 106 in this thread?
The part of the Burger commentary in which he agrees in his stated opinion with the decision of the court? The agreement that is the only reference anywhere in any of the opinions to reference "children born in this country to illegal alien parents? The reference that describes said children as "Mexican Citizens?"
That reference in that opinion? Is that what you seem to have a problem locating?
Does the SCOTUS case you cited address the question? No.
You are absolutely correct. Nowhere in the case, Syllabus, Opinion, a Concurrence or Dissent is there any statement that confers United States Citizenship to children born in the U.S. of illegal alien parents.
STE=Q
when Mexico’s new president Calderon states that “wherever there is a Mexican, that is Mexico” he may — in the sense that they are Mexican subjects — be legally correct!
Mexican President Calderon should have, quite bluntly, kept his big mouth shut. If there ever actually was a question of allegiance or jurisdiction it is at least half answered now. Mexico is claiming jurisdiction over all of the illegals. If they allow the AB's to vote, it's a total wrap. If not, it is up to American law. And so far there appears to be only one statement from any of the SC Justices that reference children born in the U.S. of illegal alien parents. And it described them as "Mexican citizens."
When the 14th was passed there was no such thing as illegal immigration
On July 28, 1868, Secretary Seward certified without reservation that the amendment was a part of the Constitution. In the interim, two other States, Alabama on July 13 and Georgia on July 21, 1868, had added their ratifications.
RINO rage.
anchor baby DOES NOT MEAN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZEN.
This is a very important distinction.
It USED to be that the citizenship created an anchor but in 1996 the Republicans pushed through an immigration reform which eliminated the anchor baby from citizenship. Custody followed the ADULTS not the child. thus, the child went home with the deported parents regardless of citizenship.
The Dream Act AMNESTY bill is an attempt to make ALL public school children into so called anchor babies regardless of citizenship. Essentially Sen. Durbin was making two years of public school all that was required to become an anchor baby. (and his anchor babies could have been as old as 30!!)
Even under post 1996 rules, immigration lawyers were making up all forms of “special medical needs” arguments to create a reason for a family to stay based on a child.
Just remember.
Birthright citizenship does NOT mean anchor baby for serial immigration.
Custody follows the parents and a minor, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, goes home with the parents.
“Mexico is claiming jurisdiction over all of the illegals. If they allow the AB’s to vote, it’s a total wrap.”
Why does the above remind me of the famous story of the “Trojan horse” and the defeat of the great city of Troy?
The “soldiers”(AB’s)may be out of the “horse”(the vagina’s of thier illegal mothers in this case)and our defeat may just be a matter of time.
,,, And the beauty of their strategy is that they our poised to when THIS war — without even firing a shot!
Thank you for your post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.